knowledge_commonsfandomcom-20200214-history
Paradigms of Philanthropy
SOME PARADIGMS OF PHILANTHROPY: Draft created by Jon Van Til on basis of George McCully’s table TRADITIONAL (CLASSICAL) PARADIGM—PRE 1900 Technology: · Word of mouth · Printed flyers · Printing on paper ' Economy:' · Regional, agricultural and industrial, troubled by uneven growth and social inequalities ' Institutions:' Advocacy: · Protests typically conducted by mass “mobs” · Political parties as voluntary associations · Effective citizen campaigns on bases of direct action: anti-slavery ' ' ' People:' · The voluntary practice of charity and philanthropy seen as a personal duty. · Mixed motives: community advancement and personal gain (Squanto) · · · · Religious leaders: Winthrop, William Penn, Cotton Mather · Business and civic elites rising to leadership: Ben Franklin · ' Practices:' · Charity, volunteering and philanthropy operate through church and social networks of “benevolence”. · Establishment of public-private partnership as central to welfare provision. · Development of philanthropy to provide relief: Civil war assistance · Development of “scientific philanthropy”: Red Cross, Charity Organization Society ' Culture:' · The word and concept of “philanthropy” remain important parts of religion-based and personal ethical statements · New “scientific” ideas arise from social work theory and practice ' ' Rhetoric: · Philanthropy contrasted with the development of an increasingly competitive economic environment · Critical traditions directed against “foolish philanthropy”: Emerson, Thoreau Theoretical basis: · Faith-based Community (gemeinschaft) in transformation to capitalism (gesellschaft) Results: · A vital and viable set of higher educational institutions · An enduring set of hospitals, orphanages, and other social service providers · A stable and enduring two-party political system · An enduring tradition of mass protest · Awareness of the limitation of economic corporate enterprise · 20th Century PARADIGM Technology: · Telephone · Snail-mail · Printing on paper ' Economy:' · National, post-World War II manufacturing, stable, steady-growth, large national corporations, local-community oriented ' Institutions:' Advocacy: · Formalization of lobbying practice and techniques · Recurrent social movements addressing selected injustices · ' People:' · Professionalization makes philanthropy highly technical, dominated by social science-trained professionals and technical, procedural lingo''' ' ' Practices:' · A “Third sector” emerges, with three recognized, and sometimes conflicting aims and practices: service, consummatory activity, and advocacy · Industrialized mass fundraising by telemarketing and direct mail · Donors not represented by national institution. Independent Sector formed to represent everybody, but actually composed of national foundations · Grant seeking and fundraising become sales transactions, increasingly competitive and adversarial, pitting fundraisers against grant makers and donors ' Culture:' · Social scientific; social engineering, purporting to attack roots of problems; vocabulary is technical · The word and concept of “philanthropy” falls into disuse ' ' '''Rhetoric:' · Inadvertently negative and moralistic: "Giving back", "Giving away", through “non-profits”, or “tax-exempt entities” in the “third sector” to the “disadvantaged” and “needy.” · Generosity = how much one gives. Theoretical basis: · Associational Pluralism in the context of Neo-corporatist capitalism Results: New Paradigm — 21st Century USA ' Technology:' ' Economy:' · Global, high-technology, service economy · Rapidly expansive, innovative, generating huge new wealth · Old companies merging to take advantage of global markets · Corporations less local-community oriented Institutions: · New mega-foundations, with new styles, bring new leadership · Donor-advised funds rapidly grow and multiply · Innovations abound; Internet speeds-up communications and eliminates geographic impediments, reducing need for national top-down associations and conventions, and creating new online professional networks (e.g. LinkedIn) · Decentralized virtual philanthropic communities emerge in cyberspace · Internet promotes systematization—e.g., of data systems, taxonomy of fields, searches for and direct access to all charities · Leading national donor-advised funds (NDAFs) develop virtually complete, donor-based, charities datasets, systematically taxonomized for donor education, liberating philanthropy from IRS-based conflation and confusion with “nonprofits” · NDAF donor datasets enable new depth and breadth in statistical analyses of donor behavior Advocacy: · Internet based mass movements engender massive and often influential short-term protests: Occupy · Internet based networks engender political impact: Tea Party, Move-on · ' People:' · New wealth-creators emerge as risk-taking donor-investors, and explore unconventional modes of giving and volunteering · Major donors are younger, systematic, data-driven, quantifiers. They reject the negative vocabulary, conceptualization, and rhetoric of the Old Paradigm · Want constructively to improve the human condition, more like the classical concept of philanthropy Practices: · Promoting increased giving and philanthropy itself · Donor education;' '''venture philanthropy; giving circles; e-philanthropy · Social network systems; collaborations in and among' constituencies and sectors · Professional community broadens to include philanthropic advisors, scholars, and media ' ' '''Culture: · Humanistic and social-scientific self-development for both donors and beneficiaries; social scientific tools for explicitly humanistic ends · Use of the word and concept of “philanthropy” is revived. · Classical humanistic culture of philanthropy seen as quintessentially American — informed building Colonial society, the Revolution, the Constitution, anti-slavery, and women’s suffrage movements ' Rhetoric:' · Constructive appeal; “Donor-Investors”, “Making a difference,” quantifiable impacts, “social change,” and “charities” · Generosity = '''relation of giving to wealth '''Theoretical basis: · Mass society redux? ' Results:' · Too soon to tell—combined factors above will drive significant increase How will this historic shift affect your institution and practice? New Paradigm — 21st Century hungary1 ' Technology:' ' Economy:' · Local, low-tech service economy, much located in black sector, avoiding · taxation · Sluggish, generating new wealth only for politically connected elites · Only spotty efforts to reach global markets · Corporations owned and controlled outside the country, and not at all local-community oriented Institutions: · Strong, capricious, and authoritarian government · No mega-foundations, few new styles, little new leadership · Few if any Donor-advised funds · Innovations only outside formal institutions, taking form of Internet calls to mass action speeds-up communications and eliminates geographic impediments, and creating ephemeral online professional networks (e.g. LinkedIn) · Decentralized virtual philanthropic communities yet to emerge in cyberspace · Systematization of data systems, taxonomy of fields, searches for and direct access to all charities restricted or prevented by governmental control of data · Civil society organizations branded as “foreign agencies” and enemies of the national state Advocacy: · Internet based mass movements engender massive and often influential short-term protests · Internet based networks engender only minimal political impact · Governmental blacklists confront participants with loss of employment ' People:' · New wealth-creators emerge as risk-taking donor-investors, and begin to think abourt unconventional modes of giving and volunteering · Younger, systematic, data-driven, quantifiers contemplate leaving the country for elsewhere in the EU. They reject the negative vocabulary, conceptualization, and rhetoric of the Regime, and aspire to be modern. · Practices: · Some mild interest in increased giving and philanthropy itself · Limited Donor education;' '''venture philanthropy; giving circles; e-philanthropy · Limited Social network systems; collaborations in and among' constituencies and sectors · Limited Professional community including philanthropic advisors, scholars, and media ' ' '''Culture: · Little use of the word and concept of “philanthropy”, except as a foreign conception · Classical humanistic culture of philanthropy seen as quintessentially American and inappropriate to Hungary — informed building Colonial society, the Revolution, the Constitution, anti-slavery, and women’s suffrage movements · Self-centered, pessimistic, angered at authoritarian state · Rejuvenated civil society after transition of 1989 caught in reverse third wave of democratization ' Rhetoric:' · Almost total absence of constructive appeal; “Donor-Investors”, “Making a difference,” quantifiable impacts, “social change,” and “charities” · Generosity = '''concept applicable only to family and friends · Government claims that adherence to tradition will resolve all concerns '''Theoretical basis: · Mass society firmly established: little organization existing between the authoritarian state and the familistic/café level of society. ' Results:' · High potential of collapse of authority and replacement by street chaos and new forms of totalitarian control · Vulnerability to Russian influence and control 1 Also to be constructed: Hungary 1000-1989; Hungary 1989-2014